District Markets Director at Johns, Bruen and Haag
Skilled at Rustic Granite Tuna
Nash Pfannerstill• 2nd
Regional Implementation Planner at Langosh Inc
Skilled at Refined Metal Tuna
See helpful people who have experience with this product
Considered Both Products
Amazon RDS
Verified User
Employee
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
RDS support more relational database engines. RDS gives us option to choose type of machine in which database will be hosted which Google Cloud SQL not. Security-wise RDS enforce by default to set password which Google Cloud SQL doesn't. Also we can attack security group to …
Amazon RDS supports a wider range of database engines, including MySQL,
PostgreSQL, Oracle, Microsoft SQL Server, and Amazon Aurora (MySQL and
PostgreSQL-compatible) than Google Cloud SQL. When compared to Google Cloud SQL, AWS provides a larger global footprint with …
AWS RDS provides multiple Engines as compared to Google SQL AWS RDS provides more than 5 read replicas which a Google SQL does not AWS RDS is a cheaper option than Redshift for smaller datasets. Redshift is a Dataware house and must be used for super large datasets only …
Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) stands out among similar products due to its seamless integration with other AWS services, automated backups, and multi-AZ deployments for high availability. Its support for various database engines, such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, and …
Verified User
Employee
Chose Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS)
There are a lot of factor we took into consideration the most important ones are: Ease of use and setup - Compared to other similar options Amazon RDS is very easy to setup just clicking few options and its ready for POC and for production very easy and flexible Terraform …
1: If your company is already deeply involved in the AWS ecosystem, such as AWS Lambda, Amazon S3, or Amazon Redshift, leveraging Amazon RDS might result in a more seamless integration of services. AWS offers a broad set of cloud services, which makes it easier to design and …
Amazon RDS excels with its widely adopted and mature ecosystem, supporting various database engines. While Azure SQL Database offers a tiered pricing structure and automatic patching, and Cloud SQL provides straightforward pricing and easy scaling, Amazon RDS's extensive …
Earlier we were using the Azure Ecosystem but we faced some issues in DevOps side so we decided to migrate towards some other reliable infra so we migrated all our engines, RDS and other services to Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) and from that time we are using this. …
In my opinion, Amazon Relational Database Service (RDS) has provided better services in terms of Scalability and data Security as compared to its competitor. It helped us to manage our data using RDS server more efficiently and effectively. The high Availability helped us to …
At first GCP was considered, but it not very intuitive to use and maintain. We then wanted to run MySQL instances on EC2, which would have been a little cost effective but having limited man power and hassle of patching, scaling and backup led us to select more managed service.
As a POC, we had worked with Azure and GCP's databases as well. One problem with Azure is that it seems slow in supporting new versions of MySQL. With GCP Cloud SQL, the security configuration for the database was not as intuitive as in AWS. The UI in both Azure and GCP was …
It's hard to identify how Amazon RDS stacks up against the databases they support, because to install and use a relational database in a production environment you need a Database Administrator to help install, configure and manage. Amazon RDS keeps the details simple enough …
Setting up or migrating Google Cloud SQL is easy as compared to AWS. It has a good monitoring and logging mechanism and a good user interface which makes it easy to navigate.It also has a pay as you go pricing which makes it easier to reduce cost. Google Cloud SQL offers …
We were already using other few services from GCP for computing and hosting because which Google Cloud SQL was our first choice. We compared pricing of other cloud database service providers like AWS RDS and Microsoft SQL database but we found Google Cloud SQL database service …
Actually Google Cloud SQL is similar to them, the difference is which engine each supports e.g. there's no managed Oracle DB in Google Cloud SQL but as long as you don't need Oracle, Google Cloud SQL should suffice and give you great user experience and performance. You also …
It is cheaper than other cloud giants for the minimum instances and upfront capital investment requirement. It offers decent pricing for long-term usage on moderate or even high-spec instances (comparable to AWS and far better than Azure). Many more available resources are …
- AWS RDS and Aurora is a just a notch above Google Cloud SQL as it provide boost in performance when required - Google Cloud SQL Mysql Engine is Cloud based and better than native Mysql as it provides management of the server out of box - Compared to a MongoDB it has a low …
Easier learning, simple features and settings with a very user-friendly application environment and flexible prices make Google Cloud [SQL] a pioneering option over competitors
Google Cloud SQL is just as good as the other guys. We were already invested in GCP, which made the choice very easy. We did not want to start fresh in AWS or Azure. We used our existing GCP setup and just added Cloud SQL. It's unfortunate that companies continue to send people …
Google Cloud SQL is very similar to other cloud provider options. AWS and DigitalOcean are direct competitors, While Azure is focusing on their own products. At cloud provider level, it's a matter of choosing the provider, and this product will not play a significant role on …